Street v. Allianz Life Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Street v. Allianz Life Insurance Co.

83 So. 3d 779, 2011 WL 5244327, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17511

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 2011

Docket5D11-436

StatusPublished

This text of 83 So. 3d 779 (Street v. Allianz Life Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Street v. Allianz Life Insurance Co., 83 So. 3d 779, 2011 WL 5244327, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17511 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold and Ruth Street appeal a final order that dismissed with prejudice their negligence claim against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. Although we agree with the trial court that any negligence claim related to the Streets’ purchase of Allianz deferred annuities prior to May 19, 2006, would be barred by the statute of limitations, we *780 cannot conclude that the Streets would be unable to state a cause of action as to events that arose after that date. On remand, the Streets should be afforded the opportunity to amend their pleadings. See Crow’n v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So.3d 978, 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (all doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment unless it clearly appears that allowing amendment would prejudice opposing party, privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Harold and Ruth Street appeal a final order that dismissed with prejudice their negligence claim against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. Although we agree with the trial court that any negligence claim related to the Streets’ purchase of Allianz deferred annuities prior to May 19, 2006, would be barred by the statute of limitations, we *780 cannot conclude that the Streets would be unable to state a cause of action as to events that arose after that date. On remand, the Streets should be afforded the opportunity to amend their pleadings. See Crow’n v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So.3d 978, 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (all doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment unless it clearly appears that allowing amendment would prejudice opposing party, privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 3d 779, 2011 WL 5244327, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-allianz-life-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack